Why Wasn't Eve Changed?

[Josheb]

Why wasn't Eve changed?

The Genesis 3 account is not explicit, but the way the text is written it seems to indicate both Adam's and Eve's eyes were not opened until after Adam ate. The eyes of Adam and the eyes of Eve were opened simultaneously and only after Adam ate.

Genesis 3:6-7 NAS
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

Genesis 3:6-7 KJV
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.

Genesis 3:6-7 ESV
So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

Genesis 3:6-7 LSV
And the woman sees that the tree [is] good for food, and that it [is] pleasant to the eyes, and the tree is desirable to make [one] wise, and she takes from its fruit and eats, and also gives [some] to her husband with her, and he eats; and the eyes of them both are opened, and they know that they [are] naked, and they sew fig-leaves, and make girdles for themselves.


Is it correct to read these verses to say their eyes were opened simultaneously, or is that merely an ambiguity created by the English language? For example, we might say "Everyone gathered at the table for Thanksgiving dinner, and they ate until they were all full," does not necessarily mean everyone was full at the same time. Were Adam's Eve's eyes opened simultaneously, or sequentially? If Eve was changed when she ate, then why is there no mention of that change in scripture (other than that she was deceived and fell into transgression before Adam, according to 1 Timothy 2:14)? Was is there no mention she realized she was naked and ashamed prior to her giving the forbidden fruit to Adam? If adversely changed, then why would she offer the fruit she knew would adversely affect Adam to him? If changed, and Adam could see or otherwise recognize that change, then why would he accept the fruit in disobedience to God and eat? Or are all those questions misguided because we should read the text to say both their eyes were opened simultaneously consequent to Adam's eating?

IF the latter, then why wasn't Eve changed? Why weren't her eyes opened the moment she disobeyed God?

 

[Mr GLee]

Why wasn't Eve changed?

The Genesis 3 account is not explicit, but the way the text is written it seems to indicate both Adam's and Eve's eyes were not opened until after Adam ate. The eyes of Adam and the eyes of Eve were opened simultaneously and only after Adam ate.

Genesis 3:6-7 NAS
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

Genesis 3:6-7 KJV
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.

Genesis 3:6-7 ESV
So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

Genesis 3:6-7 LSV
And the woman sees that the tree [is] good for food, and that it [is] pleasant to the eyes, and the tree is desirable to make [one] wise, and she takes from its fruit and eats, and also gives [some] to her husband with her, and he eats; and the eyes of them both are opened, and they know that they [are] naked, and they sew fig-leaves, and make girdles for themselves.


Is it correct to read these verses to say their eyes were opened simultaneously, or is that merely an ambiguity created by the English language? For example, we might say "Everyone gathered at the table for Thanksgiving dinner, and they ate until they were all full," does not necessarily mean everyone was full at the same time. Were Adam's Eve's eyes opened simultaneously, or sequentially? If Eve was changed when she ate, then why is there no mention of that change in scripture (other than that she was deceived and fell into transgression before Adam, according to 1 Timothy 2:14)? Was is there no mention she realized she was naked and ashamed prior to her giving the forbidden fruit to Adam? If adversely changed, then why would she offer the fruit she knew would adversely affect Adam to him? If changed, and Adam could see or otherwise recognize that change, then why would he accept the fruit in disobedience to God and eat? Or are all those questions misguided because we should read the text to say both their eyes were opened simultaneously consequent to Adam's eating?

IF the latter, then why wasn't Eve changed? Why weren't her eyes opened the moment she disobeyed God?

I would think simotaniiously the twinkling of the eye losing innocents.' guiltlessness.

Remember in that parable the tree of eternal life representing the gospel was hid from sight .

Adam was to represent Christ unseen and bring the prophecy .(the stronger vessel) Eve the weaker vessel representing the whole church as the apostles sent ones. developing the priesthood of believers. Moses represented by Adam. Eve represented by Aaron

Exodus 7King James VersionAnd the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land.

Satan in false pride added to prophecy (neither shall you touch)

The two building blocks of false pride .The lust of the flesh drawing them to the hidden tree,. when seen. . lust of the eyes they touched .Not dying they ate and did die

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Same kind of lust spoken of below. .

Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Adam failed to protect her from false prophecy .

 

[3 Resurrections]

Or are all those questions misguided because we should read the text to say both their eyes were opened simultaneously consequent to Adam's eating?

IF the latter, then why wasn't Eve changed? Why weren't her eyes opened the moment she disobeyed God?

Here is one proposed answer to the question. Adam and Eve were "one flesh". Until that entire one-fleshed unit of both man and wife had disobeyed, the full consequences of her sinful action were still pending.

Here is another proposed answer. We are told that "as in ADAM all die". Adam was the representative originator of all the seed of men that would come from him. In that representative position, it took the fall of the representative man Adam for the full consequences of sin to be passed on to his progeny from that point onward. This necessitated the virgin birth of Christ as "the seed of the WOMAN" (and not the seed of the man Adam).

We see the Mosaic law requiring sacrifices for both sins of ignorance and sins of deliberate intent, as originally demonstrated by Eve (who sinned in deceived ignorance), and Adam who was NOT deceived (and who sinned with full knowledge of what he was doing). If I remember correctly, the particular animal sacrifices required for sins of ignorance were female beasts.

 

[Josheb]

I would think simotaniiously the twinkling of the eye losing innocents.' guiltlessness.

Remember in that parable the tree of eternal life representing the gospel was hid from sight .

Adam was to represent Christ unseen and bring the prophecy .(the stronger vessel) Eve the weaker vessel representing the whole church as the apostles sent ones. developing the priesthood of believers. Moses represented by Adam. Eve represented by Aaron

Exodus 7King James VersionAnd the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land.

Satan in false pride added to prophecy (neither shall you touch)

The two building blocks of false pride .The lust of the flesh drawing them to the hidden tree,. when seen. . lust of the eyes they touched .Not dying they ate and did die

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Same kind of lust spoken of below. .

Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Adam failed to protect her from false prophecy .

Lemme make sure I'm understanding that correctly. Am I to understand their eyes were opened simultaneously..... and the reason Eve's eyes weren't opened until Adam ate is because he failed to protect her?

 

[Josheb]

Here is one proposed answer to the question. Adam and Eve were "one flesh". Until that entire one-fleshed unit of both man and wife had disobeyed, the full consequences of her sinful action were still pending.

Here is another proposed answer. We are told that "as in ADAM all die". Adam was the representative originator of all the seed of men that would come from him. In that representative position, it took the fall of the representative man Adam for the full consequences of sin to be passed on to his progeny from that point onward. This necessitated the virgin birth of Christ as "the seed of the WOMAN" (and not the seed of the man Adam).

We see the Mosaic law requiring sacrifices for both sins of ignorance and sins of deliberate intent, as originally demonstrated by Eve (who sinned in deceived ignorance), and Adam who was NOT deceived (and who sinned with full knowledge of what he was doing). If I remember correctly, the particular animal sacrifices required for sins of ignorance were female beasts.

If you do not mind.....

I think you're on the correct track with that explanation , but I will postpone my response until a few others have weighed in.

 

[makesends]

Were Adam's Eve's eyes opened simultaneously, or sequentially?

Yes, sequentially, starting from left to right.

I always assumed Eve's eyes were immediately opened —not sure why— I have wondered if she looked weird to Adam just before he ate, and if that had anything to do with why he chose to eat it.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, sequentially, starting from left to right.

I always assumed Eve's eyes were immediately opened —not sure why— I have wondered if she looked weird to Adam just before he ate, and if that had anything to do with why he chose to eat it.

Then how are the relevant questions asked in this op answered?

• If Eve was changed when she ate, then why is there no mention of that change in scripture (other than that she was deceived and fell into transgression before Adam, according to 1 Timothy 2:14)?
• Why is there no mention she realized she was naked and ashamed prior to her giving the forbidden fruit to Adam?
• If adversely changed, then why would she offer the fruit she knew would adversely affect Adam to him?
• If changed, and Adam could see or otherwise recognize that change, then why would he accept the fruit in disobedience to God and eat?

The point being this: Reading a sequential change prompts a lot more questions than does a simultaneous change and, at a minimum, that's going to violate Occam's Razor. If the questions can't be answered, then the net result is sequentialism creates a bunch of unanswerable questions.

Or perhaps you have answers to all of the above inquiries.


Also....

I would think simotaniiously the twinkling of the eye losing innocents.' guiltlessness.

Yes, sequentially, starting from left to right.

I assume the smiley face emoticon is intended to indicate jest, but if not then those two statements contradict one another. Would you clarify that for me? Thx

 

[makesends]

Then how are the relevant questions asked in this op answered?

• If Eve was changed when she ate, then why is there no mention of that change in scripture (other than that she was deceived and fell into transgression before Adam, according to 1 Timothy 2:14)?

The lack of mention makes it easy to think she was not immediately changed. But I don't know. The lack of mention of change has been made into the notion that she did not even sin, but I think otherwise.

(Aside: I don't know if the fact that she was deceived implies that she did not sin, but I tend to think she did sin. But, if she did not, it could actually make a good case for imputation of sin, since she was not physically a descendent of Adam's sinful flesh, but only made of his pre-fallen rib. Yet I think we can assert that she was not sinless after the fall. She certainly lost her innocence.)

• Why is there no mention she realized she was naked and ashamed prior to her giving the forbidden fruit to Adam?

Same thing I said above applies.

• If adversely changed, then why would she offer the fruit she knew would adversely affect Adam to him?

Good question. Maybe the same reason that sinners in Romans 1 love company.

• If changed, and Adam could see or otherwise recognize that change, then why would he accept the fruit in disobedience to God and eat?

All I am sure of about that, is that he knew better.

The point being this: Reading a sequential change prompts a lot more questions than does a simultaneous change and, at a minimum, that's going to violate Occam's Razor. If the questions can't be answered, then the net result is sequentialism creates a bunch of unanswerable questions.

Or perhaps you have answers to all of the above inquiries.

Not sure I agree that is the simplest answer, but... Either way, while part of the sure results of any sin is typically immediate, God could hold off on the effects until he pleases. The fact that we look for a natural reason for the sequence (or lack of sequence) kind of bothers me.

Also....


I assume the smiley face emoticon is intended to indicate jest, but if not then those two statements contradict one another. Would you clarify that for me? Thx

Yes, it was in jest, as in, her eyes were opened sequentially, left to right, as were his.

 

[Mr GLee]

Lemme make sure I'm understanding that correctly. Am I to understand their eyes were opened simultaneously..... and the reason Eve's eyes weren't opened until Adam ate is because he failed to protect her?

Simultaneously.... at the same time.

Exodus 7:1-2 identifying the priesthood of believers Eve as Aaron to represent the whole church the bride of Christ the priesthood of believers .Adam as Moses representing Christ not seen giving words to his prophets a kingdoms of priest. (Eve)

Adam failed to prophecy the words of Christ. Do not eat which would of protected her .Eve had no idea of the loving commandment. (Do not eat)

Satan knowing the wife the weaker chosen vessel prophesied his false prophecy ."Neither shall you touch" .Led by the spirit of false prophecy false pride the two building blocks . . . .1# lust of the flesh anxiety in the hope of seeing the miracle tree hid in middle. When seen the 2# lust of the eye touches .

In not dying immediately they ate .

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Look but do not touch . . Yes dear!

Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
FAQ: Why wasn't the woman's moral perception altered when she tasted the
forbidden fruit?

REPLY: It was apparently God's decision that if sin and death were to come into the
world, they would do so by means of the solo actions of one person, just as life and
righteousness would come into the world by means of the solo actions of one
person. (Rom 5:12-21, 1Cor 15:21-22)
_

 

[CrowCross]

Why wasn't Eve changed?

The Genesis 3 account is not explicit, but the way the text is written it seems to indicate both Adam's and Eve's eyes were not opened until after Adam ate. The eyes of Adam and the eyes of Eve were opened simultaneously and only after Adam ate.

Genesis 3:6-7 NAS
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

Genesis 3:6-7 KJV
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.

Genesis 3:6-7 ESV
So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

Genesis 3:6-7 LSV
And the woman sees that the tree [is] good for food, and that it [is] pleasant to the eyes, and the tree is desirable to make [one] wise, and she takes from its fruit and eats, and also gives [some] to her husband with her, and he eats; and the eyes of them both are opened, and they know that they [are] naked, and they sew fig-leaves, and make girdles for themselves.


Is it correct to read these verses to say their eyes were opened simultaneously, or is that merely an ambiguity created by the English language? For example, we might say "Everyone gathered at the table for Thanksgiving dinner, and they ate until they were all full," does not necessarily mean everyone was full at the same time. Were Adam's Eve's eyes opened simultaneously, or sequentially? If Eve was changed when she ate, then why is there no mention of that change in scripture (other than that she was deceived and fell into transgression before Adam, according to 1 Timothy 2:14)? Was is there no mention she realized she was naked and ashamed prior to her giving the forbidden fruit to Adam? If adversely changed, then why would she offer the fruit she knew would adversely affect Adam to him? If changed, and Adam could see or otherwise recognize that change, then why would he accept the fruit in disobedience to God and eat? Or are all those questions misguided because we should read the text to say both their eyes were opened simultaneously consequent to Adam's eating?

IF the latter, then why wasn't Eve changed? Why weren't her eyes opened the moment she disobeyed God?

All we can do is speculate.
Some speculate and say Adam ate because he knew of Eves fate...and his love for her who was made from his very own body was so great Adam didn't want Eve to go alone. Perhaps that thought is based upon some x-tra biblical writings.

 

[CrowCross]

(Aside: I don't know if the fact that she was deceived implies that she did not sin, but I tend to think she did sin. But, if she did not, it could actually make a good case for imputation of sin, since she was not physically a descendent of Adam's sinful flesh, but only made of his pre-fallen rib. Yet I think we can assert that she was not sinless after the fall. She certainly lost her innocence.)

Interesting thought.
1 Tim 2:14 says....And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression.

It sounds like Adam knew what He was getting into.

 

[makesends]

It sounds like Adam knew what He was getting into.

—knew something about it, at least, but nobody knows the horror of sin but God.

 

[Josheb]

All we can do is speculate.
Some speculate and say Adam ate because he knew of Eves fate...and his love for her who was made from his very own body was so great Adam didn't want Eve to go alone. Perhaps that thought is based upon some x-tra biblical writings.

Indeed

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
It's believed by a pretty large percentage of conventional Christians that the fallen
nature is inherited from one's paternal father. Oh? From whence did Eve get it?

She was already alive and fully constructed with material taken from Adam's body
prior to the forbidden fruit incident. Since himself tasted the fruit after his wife was
already in existence; then it was impossible for Adam to pass the fallen nature to
her via heredity.

In the past, I was sure that the chemistry of the forbidden fruit had something to
do with the first couple's altered moral perception; but now I seriously doubt it
because Eve was the first to eat the fruit, and when she did, nothing happened. She
remained just as shameless in the buff as before. It wasn't till Adam tasted the fruit
that she began to feel exposed; so I'm pretty sure that the underlying cause is far
more serious than the chemistry of that fruit.

FAQ: If Eve's fallen condition wasn't due to the fruit, nor due to heredity, then what?

REPLY: Well; obviously the Serpent did it to them, a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 12:9, Rev 20:2)

The ruler of the kingdom of the air-- the spirit world --has the power of death
(Heb 2:14) and the ability to tamper with the human body and the human mind in
ways not easily detected. (e.g. Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, plus Eph 2:2-3)

The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to wield his power the moment that
Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me how quickly it takes effect.
Not long after Adam tasted the fruit, he and his wife both immediately set to work
cobbling together some rudimentary aprons to cover up their pelvic areas.

This power of death allowed the Devil is apparently binding and could only be
overturned by Christ's crucifixion.

● Heb 2:14 . . Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their
humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death;
that is: the Devil.

That is at least one good reason why folks need to RSVP God about His son's
crucifixion to avoid leaving this life under the Devil's supervision. They've got to get
that arrangement dissolved now, while an opportunity for liberty is on the table.
_

 

[Josheb]

Hi everyone,

I wrote this recent spate of inquiries here and elsewhere in the Bible Questions board simply for everyone's enjoyment. Because scripture is silent on these matters the answers are, necessarily, going to be ones of speculation. The inquiries were intended to provoke a little thought, some consideration of scripture, some enjoyable conversation among us, and the opportunity to discuss some things in light-hearted manner (as opposed to the more serious and sometimes rancorous topics of salvation, end times, or the Trinity).

I do not think there is an answer to this op's inquiry.

Were I to venture an answer I, personally, suggest those who tied Eve to Adam and treated Adam-and-Eve as a single entity relevant to their both being created in Gods image, male and female, are on the correct track, but that's entirely speculative on my part. I think there might also be some veracity in the premise Adam might still have possessed some kind of redemptive agency had he not disobeyed God. That's not going to get us very far because even if only one disobeys..... all humanity is lost to sin. Just as two imperfect people cannot procreate perfect progeny, neither can one imperfect and one perfect person. Eve sinfully kills the entirety of humanity the moment she eats. Perhaps Adam understood that but, again, that's sheer speculation. Perhaps Adam could have petitioned God to take his life in place of hers but that would still mean the loss of humanity (Eve cannot reproduce without a partner). Perhaps Adam could have eaten from the tree of life and thereby some healing or resolution to Eve's condition been addressed but, again, that is sheer speculation. I've asked this question many times of many people (including some well-known preachers and theologians) and no one has a definitive answer. Curiously, the most commonly received answer appeals to Adam's headship, and the belief the male is the head of the household and therefore no effect of disobedience occurred until he disobeyed God. Another explanation attends to the fact Eve disobeyed God in a state of deception and was, therefore, not responsible for her actions the same way Adam, who disobeyed God in full possession of his God-given faculties. These attempts fall apart on closer whole-scripture examination (Adam was not the "head" in Eden - Eve was made from the side, not the foot). However, as is the case in these frivolous inquiries, perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps there is an answer found in the whole of God's Word and we need to continue investigating. There is no end of such speculations but that does not mean we cannot enjoin such inquiries.

It does, however, mean we should not waste a lot of time on them .

From time to time I'll post others. They can be recognized as opportunities for light-heartedness but sincere exchange by their inherently speculative nature. As far as this op goes, however, the op has served its purpose, and I appreciate everyone's participation. I hope the opportunity to have a little light-hearted speculation and fun was realized.